Newspaper Page Text
2.
THE ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN-
THE DAILY SUN
Wednesday Mousing. August 2.
Politics in West Virginia.
The following is an address to the
voters of this State, in the pending
canvass, to strike the word “white /
ont of their Constitution upon the
matter of suffrage. It clearly indi
cates what are constituting “living is
sues” there:
You are soon to be called to the
polls, to decide a question far more
important than the election of any
officer, whose tenure is but for a few
years, and whose acts, however repre
hensible they may be, you have al
ways hitherto had it in your power
to revoke. The question at issue,
stripped of all disguises, is, whether
or not yon will keep this power in
your own hands. Will you submit
to any tampering with the right of
suffrage on the part of your public
servants, or will you decide now it
shall be exercised and by whom?
And if yon determine to retain this
power, will you share it with the
negro? Put the question in this
way, and your answer is not uncer
tain—from peak to peak your native
•hills would echo and re-echo the
thunder of your No! But the ene
mies of our race and country dare
not put in so plainly. They tell you
that the word “white” which you are
asked to strike out of your Constitu
tion is already a nullity—a meaning
less blot, on its pages. They tell
you that the “issue is dead,” that ne
gro suffrage is “a fixed fact,” hoping
to conceal from, you the great import
ance of your action in the matter,
and and to persnade you that ft is a
mere formality, while the truth is,
that by voting for this measure, you
assume the whole responsibility of
negro suffrage, and do' actually : ‘fx”
the “fact” forever within your State,
irrespective of all p&st legislation,
State or .Federal. No wrong is a
“fixed fact” so Ion" as a free people
determine to remain free. Had your
ancestors, who achieved for you" the
priceless heritage of free government,
reasoned as do the advocates of this
amendment, you would still be the
oppressed subjects of kingly power.
Do you love iiberty less than they ?
Are you* prepared to surrender this
dearly bought right of self-govern
ment at the first assault of its ene
mies? Will yon let them lead you,
/blindfold and submissive, to your
.own and your country’s ruin ? Open
your eyes, we beseech you, before it
bo too late! If the spirit of your
fathers still survives, if the pride of
race be not dead, we implore you to
j>ause and reflect, before you take the
fatal stop»
You are now asked to ehdofsS the
. “Flick Amendment,” which is the
immediate offspring of that most
daring and shamless violation of the
Federal Constitution, the so-called
“Fifteenth Amendment.” The Con
gress which proposed, and the Legis
lature which presumed to ratify this
measure, are guilty of the most fla
grant usurpation, and the people who
will tamely submit to it, must al
ready be npe for slavery.
. A written constitution constitutes
the principal difference between a free
and a despotic government.' It is the
supreme law of the land, binding
upon people and legislators alike.
Enactments not mado in conformity
to it are not laws. If the people in
fringe this fundamental law, they
open the gates to anarchy; if they
permit their legislators to infringe it,
they invite and welcome tyranny. It
is the wall of defense against the sel
fish ambition of the few, on the one
hand, and the unbridled passions of
the multitude and the hour on the
other. The importance then, of most
jealously guarding against every
branch of it cannot be exaggerated.
By the Federal Constitution, the
people of the several States delegated
part of their inherent and sovereign
rights to a government which they
thereby instituted, expressively re-
' serving to themselves, in the follow
ing carefully chosen words, a t.t.
POWERS NOT SO DETEGATED: “All
powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor pro
hibited by it to the States, are re
served to THE STATES RESPECTIVELY
or to the people.” The highest of
all rights to a free people is that of
suffrage, with all that pertains to it.
It lies at the foundation of all. Re*
sign it, or allow any violation of it,
and the Republic falls at once. From
beginning to end the Federal Consti-
stution contains no word allowing
Congress any power whatever to reg
ulate or control the right of suffrage
in the States. It is not only one,
but the first and grertest of those
rights, which, never having been part
ed with, still remains exclusively
with the people of the States.
It is true the Constitution provides
that amendments may be made to it,
and prescribes the manner in which
Congress may propose and the States
ratify them." But by such amend
ment as may become part of the Con
stitution upon their ratification by
three-fourths of the States;, are not
meant such radical changes in Die
form of government as would take re
served rights from the people of the
States. The powers delegated are not
grants from the Federal Government
to the people, but from the people of
the several States to the Government;
consequently all further assumption
of power by the Government, in any
way, is a usurpation to which the peo
ple must never submit, and by which
they can never be bound, except by
their own consent. All powers not I rights of the people of the States,
delegated to the Federal Government and of resistance to tyrants and usur-
nor prohibited to the States or the pers. “Emblazoned with such pnn-
people thereof, remain with the peo- ciples the true men of the State and
pie of the several States, and are in- of thedand will bear it
violable. Each State remains abso- again to.the.rescue>of the
lute master of all its reserved powers, the hands of its internal foes Show
The right of deciding who shall and these men-that such treason as thens
who shall not vote il one which «o shall not go unpunished. Kqpnch-
Congrc3s, however perfectly organ- ate their leadership, Let gem see
ized—however complete, can claim, | that yoirn principles are not to besold
^ ti^opfe ofWsSe, either and that our late victory meant free-
directly at the 1 polls or by a conven- dom over wrong and oppression, and
tion invested with power to declare not their elevation to office,
their will, expressly delegate such If there be a Republican who cares
new power. Let them give even a nothing for the Republic, let him
tacit consent to so bold and unwar- vote for the Flick amendment. If
ranted an assumption of authority as there be a Democrat who is tired of
this so-called Fifteenth Amendment, self-government and longs tor an
and where will you place the limit to ebony master, let him vote to strike
the encroachments of the central gov- out the word white. If there be a
eminent? The power that gives can disfranchised citizen meon enough to
take away. If the Federal Govern- covet power at the expense of his
ment has a right to interfere at all in country’s freedom and anxious to
this matter—if it can say who shall crawl to the polls in the protecting
vote—it can also say who shall not.— shadow of the negro, let him lend his
There needs but another step to influence to the support of this infa-
change our institutions and give us a mous measure. But let true men
king.*" The article which provides for everywhere vote it down,
amendments closes with these words: * * "
“Provided, that no State, without its " ,,at Grant Costs tlie People.
consent, shall be deprived of its equal The following is a simple but compre-
suffrage .in the senate. How then heusive statement of wliat it costs to keep
could this power of proposing amend- up the White House for the year ending
ments be claimed by that miserable June 30th, taking the Congressional Globe
fragment of a Congress which ex- for authority. When the'professions of
eluded the representatives of ten I economy that the Radicals glory in, are
sovereign States, and presumed to considered the following list of items is
ern them while denying them a j the nninit i a ted, however, will be abated
voice in the National Legislature. in a measure, when informed that these
the very grievance which-, more I items are made sufficiently large to cover
than all others, was the cause of that the bills for marketing, carriages, stable
revolution to which we owe our na- expenses, a tonsor and a variety of other
tional existence. items which Grant's predecessors were
All that has been said of the fraud- considerate enough to pay out of their
ulent and unconstitutional character $-^,000 per annum. Our Ee-
« , i . i I publican court is pretty expensive, but it
of the 15 th Amendment m its L a mere trifle compared with the larger
passage by Congress is fequally true leaks through which the public money is
of its pretended ratification by the constantly escaping. Here is the resume:
States. You, the people of West Vir- Salary Private Secretary, It. Douglas $2,000
ginia, have never given your assent to
that act of revolution. Your Legisla
ture was not authorized by you to do
so. You alone have the right to say
who shall vote within your State. If
you should declare, as you now do in
your Constitution, that none hut
white male citizens shall vote within
your borders, ho power on earth has
the constitutional right to gainsay it.
Your Legislature, can do nothing of
the kind. Its so called ratification of |
the “15th Amendment” is unconsti
tutional and void. It and not the L... ,„ . . . rnnn
word “ white is a utun^. If every Lamplighters. :. ......* 1,000
State Legislature but one, should as- |^. r . e . r . s .° n . sidewalks....
sume to ratify such a measure, all to- Manure and hauling.".\\\\” 3^000
gether could not control the one ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 1 s;SSo
State refusing to ratify. Such action
strips the dissenting State of one of
its reserved rights and establishes a
precedent by which a minority of the
States is entirely at the mercy of
Assistant Private Secretary, J.
T. Ely 2,500
Executive Clerk, L. P. Suckley 1,800
Executive Clerk, O. C. Sniffin 1,SOO
Detailed Clerk, W. H. Crook 1,G00
Detailed Clerk, W. H. Fry l.COO
Military Secretary, Major and Brevet
Brig. Gen. Horace Porter 2,750
Military Secretary, Major and Brevet
Brig. Gen. O. E. Babcock 2,750
Adam Badeau 2,200
Military Secretary, *Brig. Gen. F. T.
Dent... 3.6C0
Steward....... 2,000
Messenger..: 810
Furnace Keeper 720
Policeman... 1,320
Watcliman... 900
Doorkceper-in-chief 1,000
Assistant doorkeeper COO
Secretary to sign land patents, N. G.
Broods 1,500
Plants, etc., for greenhouse 5,000
Annual appropriations for fitting np and re
furnishing '. 25,000
Additional do. 30,000
three-fourths, should the majority \\ he President receives
desire a complete change In tlieform I
Total $132,800
Add to this the 325,000 a year which
‘ we
jJHHpHdjHppiH.
„ P , tj. i - ire .. . i as the cost of maintaining President
of government, It also nullifies that I Grant in the White House. We fail to
clause in the Constitution which de- see in this either Radical economy or
clares that all powers not delegated Republican simplicity.—Saratoga Times;
are reserved, and opens wide the door July 27.
to misconstruction andltho most dan- The Alabama and Chattanooga
gerous abuse of power by the Federal | Railroad.
Government.
But for what purpose has all this I We lay before our readers the fol-
outrage been perpetrated upon the lowing dispatches relating to the
States ? What is the excuse for I above road, and the measures of the
trampling the Constitution and the | Governor to take possession of it, as
rights ot the States in the dnst ? I he proposes to do, under the laws.—
Was it to procure some extraordinary The first dispatch is from Mr. D. N.
benefit which could be obtained Stanton to Governor Lindsay, dated
only at such an immense sacrifice ? the 27th of July:
Or was it to relieve us from some great New Yobk, July 27.
and imminent danger ? No, it was Our property has been seized in the
to bind the white race and loose the I mglit byarmed paen and run off into
negro, to place an ignorant and half-
civilized people in the position of co
another State. Will you protect the
road and property of this company from
-n4Vk' „ ~ „ , ., | being seized, interfered with or des-
■ ^ * . 1 14.^° U -vT7 S -vi^ mi k troyed by persons in the State of Ala-
qtuetly to such an insult. Will you bama, in such manner that it can be run
by voting ior the -flick amendment, I with, safety by this company 7 Answer,
seal with your own hands your own D. N. Stanton,
dishonor ? If by endorsing at the Pres’t A. & C. R. R.
polls the Flick amendment yon strike To this dispatch the Governor made
out the word “white,” you are fully the folloging reply:
committed by your own voluntary ac-\ n , r . Montqomeby, Jrdy 27,
tion to negro suffrage and revolution N ' St ^ on \?u e A ‘ ? ?-, Eailr ° ad
• .-i., ‘7*1 »..•£. ifr and property will be protected, and in
. ^ °fft {? rms * and y our niutila- or der the better to accomplish this ob-
teci constitution stands a monument ject, and to protect the interests of the
of your folly and degradation, no (State and other parties concerned, I have
matter what may be done hereafter proceeded in the name of the State and
by either Congress or Legislature to under the laws authorizing me, to take
retrace their steps. Your action" ini possessionof theroad u and appurtenan-
this matter is no mere form. Those avmenrs mat a tew uavs ueiore
i°HT tbe ado P^o n , receiring^Ir.D?N^Stanton’s^dispatch
min re pudiate the Governor had commissioned Col.
\ , s - emblazoned on the banner (jindrat, his private secretary, and
° Ur C T°n? splendid! Gen. James H. Clanton, to proceed to
suc k the line of the road, and to take pos-
w ^ w a « banne v session of it through the sheriffs of
has lost nothing m the affections of tlie ctive counties of the State,
true Democrats, when it is now seen 0n yes Srd ay Gov. Lindsay received
floating triumphant in victory, least airoiehes both from Gen. Clanton
M CoL Gindrat, stating definitely
, that the road was in their hands from
Tell them that “victory is the signal Meridian Mississippi, to AttaUa near
not for retreat, but for renewed on- the Ge w '
sets, each more vigorous that thelast, j between AtHlln ™iPnh
until the forces of usm T ation
be driven from their last refuge. Un- 5? ' ^ the
der the inspiration of success true I G ^ a ^* Dow this can he
men become as bold as they are true.” ] - , 0 , e ^ 1 , 0 ~ i Proceedingsunless
But a Democratic (?) Legislature ir + e Y0 ^ n ^ a 1 1 ^ smrcnderea, we do
has become wet-nurse to this Radical ^°- clearly perceive. - At any rate
bastard! A few self-styled leaders of £ £ - a J, £ omething should be
Democracy have betrayed the men ofi e d m order the
whose votes raised them to power bv t}* S j secure tIie advantage of
surrendering in the very hour of vie- . de and travel contemplated by her
tory the principles in defense ofwhmh 1 ^ liberally aiding the construction
the battle was fought. No sooner 0t thls T0 ^—^ on igomerg Adverti
was our triumphant flag intrusted to Ser '
b f trailed it in the John Yan Buren was dining iu
bw' mean by cal " Downing’s, saloon having just cleared
Democrats would a man from some charge in the court,
??° ne el f to say. I when the complainant in the ease,
If tiieir idea of Democracy be consis- angry at the lawyer who had beaten
usurpation, they had much better go Prince John,
over openly and at once to the enemy’s “
camp, for there and there alone, are
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
August 1st, 1871.
Lochrane, C. J.. absent.
Emanuel Murray vs. The State—Indict
ment for Arson—No. 3, South Westenr
Circuit
McKAY, J.
■Where, on a trial for arson for theburn-
ing of a gin house, there was proof that
the prisoner had confessed his guilt, say
ing that he had put fire to it at 1 o’clock
at night, and there were no •corrobora
ting circumstances to prove his gnilt ex
cept that it was proven that the gin was
burnt at about that hour, and that the
defendant lived near.
Held, That, under section 3739 of the
Code, which provides that a confession
alone, uncorroborated by other evidence,
will not justify a conviction. This evi
dence was insufficient to sustain a verdict
of gnilty.
Judgment reversed.
Vason & Davis, G. W. Worwick, for
plaintiffs in error; P. B. Hollies, Solicitor
General, pro. tem., for State.
Daniel Miller vs. Peter L. Albritton—Il
legality—No. 13, South Western Cir-
cnit.
McKAY, J.
Where judgment was had in the Supe
rior Court, in September, 1868, on a
promisory note, appearing to be for value
received, and the affidavit of illegality
was filed in 1870, setting up that the con
sideration of the note was the hire of
slaves.
Held, That this ought to have been
pleaded on the trial, and the illegality
was properly overruled.
Judgment confirmed.
J. L. Wimberly, S. H. Hawkins, for
plaintiffs; C. B. Wooten, for defendant.
Randall Duckworth vs. Joseph Duck
worth—Certiorari—No. 6, South Wes
tern Circuit.
McKAY, J.
Where, on the trial of a possessory
warrant, the property was awarded by the
Magistrate to the plaintiff, on his giving
the bond required by law; and some time
after the judgment the Magistrate made
a written order, reciting that the plaintiff
had failed to give the bond, and that the
defendant had given the bond, and that
the property should he restored to him,
which was accordingly done.
Held, That it was not competent for
the Magistrate, on his being informed
that the plaintiff had not had an oppor
tunity to give the bond, to direct the
Sheriff to retake the property and turn it
over to the plaintiff, on his giving the
bond required, especially as this direction
was by parol and without notice to the
defendant.
Judgment reversed.
Hawkins & Guerry, for plaintiff.
J. A. Ansley, for defendant.
John Ontiaw, vs. N. G. Christy.—Certio
rari, No. 8, S. W. Circuit.
McKAY, J.
Sections 3,981 and 3,982, of the Code,
requiring petition for certiorari to be
verified by oath, and that a bond shall be
given for future cost and the eventual
condemnation money, are not superseded
by the Constitution of 1868, requiring
certioraries to issue only on the sanction
of the Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Warwck, West, Yason & Davis for
plaintiffr*C. B. Wooten, for defendant.
John Doe, ex dem., F. K. Wright vs.
Richard Roe, casual ejector, and N. A.
Smith, tenant in possession.—Eject
ment. No. 21,. S. W. Circuit.
McKAY, J.
Where A. made a deed to B. fora par
cel of land, which was recorded in the
proper office, but not within 12 months;
and after the recording, A. made a sub
sequent deed to C., C. having no actual
notice of the first deed, and C. went into
possession of the land and continued in
possession more than seven years.
Held, that the record of the deed to B.
is no such notice as makes the deed to C,
fraudulent, so as to defeat the deed to C,
Judgment affirmed.
C. T. Goode, for plaintiff; W. A. Haw
kins, for defendant.
these things to be found. The ban
ner of Democracy is still unstained
by them. It still bears upon its folds
the glorious mottoes of free govern
ment, of white government, °of the
Could there be any
man," said he, “so wicked, so mean,
vile, who could possibly commit a
crime so foul that yon wouldn’t de
fend him for it?” “I don’t know,”
said the prince, sucking another oys
ter right from the shell; “what have
yon been doing?
Wm. Sirrine, adm’r, &c., vs. S. W. R. R.
Co.—Suit on bond, made in 1857.
Practice. No. 17, S. W. Circuit.
McKAY, J.
Where a suit was brought on the bond
of a railroad official, dated in 1857; and
it was alleged in the declaration that the
bond had been broken by failure of the
official to account for moneys received
before and up to the time of his death,
which took place in in 1868; and on the
calling of the case, the defendant moved
to dismiss the case, because an affidavit
was not filed as to the payment of taxes.
Held, it dees not appear that the debt
3ued on was contracted or implied before
1st June, 1865.
Second—Where a case has gone to
the jury anil the evidence being fully
heard, and a demurrer is then made to
the declaration on the ground that the
cause of action is therein defectively set
forth.
Held, That the demurrer comes too
late. Under such circumstances the de
murrer must be for a cause which would
be good in arrest of Judgment.
Jndgment affirmed.
Hawkins & Burke. C. T. Goode, for
pl’ff; N. A. Smith, for deft.
James W. WilkinBon,Ordinary of Leeco.
vs. Clement A..Cheatham—Mandamus
—No. 4, S. W. Circuit. " '
WARNER, J.
This was an application fora mandamus
to compel the Ordinary of Lee county
to levy a tax upon the people of that
county, to compensate the holder of two
certificates for damage to town lots in the
town of Webster, in consequence of the
removal of the county site from the town
of Webster to Starkville, in that county
The court below awarded the mandamus
requiring the levying of the tax, to which
the Ordinary excepted.
In 1856, the General Assembly passed
an act to provide for the removal of the
county site from Webster to Starkville
and also to provide, in said act, for the
appointment of three commissioners, to
assets the damages sustained by the own
ers of town lots in Webster, and, as soon
as convenient thereafter, to give such
owners certificates of such assessment of
damages for loss sustained in consequence
of such removal of the county site ; and
that said certificate, having an endorse
ment of the amount due, by a majority
of the Justice’s of the Inferior Court,
shall be paid by the treasurer of the
connty, ont of the removal fund of said
county, created by the act ; and author
izing the Inferior Court of Lee county
to levy a tax not exceeding fifty per cent,
per annum on the State tax, to constitute
a removal fund for the payment of said
certificate.
On the 31st Dec’r, 1869, Cheatham ob
tained a mandamus nisi from the judge
of the Superior Court, requiring the Or
dinary of Lee county to show cause why
he should not proceed to levy and have
collected a tax sufficient to pay two cer
tificates held by the petitioner, amount
ing to $526, besides interest due there
on. The mandamus nisi was filed in the
Clerk’s office 14th Feb’y, 1870. On the
trial of the case in the Court below, the
petitioner exhibited in evidence two cer
tificates specifying on the faces thereof
the amounts due for the damages sus
tained by the parties named therein in
consequence of the removal from the
town of Webster, under the act of the
General Assembly, which were signed by
the commissioners, and on the back of
each certificate the names of three Jus
tices of the Inferior Court were endorsed
in their official capacity. One of the
certificates was issued to the petitioner
for damages done to his property; the
other was issued to Waters for damages
done to his property, which latter certif
icate had been assigned and transferred
by Waters to the petitioner.
Upon the hearing of the case in the
Court below, the mandamus nisi was
made absolute, and the Ordinary was or
dered to levy and collect a tax sufficient
to satisfy the petitioner’s demand.—
Whereupon the counsel for the Ordinary
excepted on various grounds as set forth
in the record.
Held, That the act of the General As
sembly authorizing the tax to be levied
and collected, was a constitutional and
valid act.
Held, also, That mandamus was the
proper remedy for the enforcement of
the right accruing to the petitioner un
der the statute of the State, which was
not barred by the Statute, of Limitations
until after the expiration of twenty years
from the time of the assessment of dam
ages by the commissioners under the act.
Held, further, That the official signa
tures of a majority of the Justices of the
Inferior Court on the back of the Com
missioner’s certificates, without more, was
sufficient endorsement by them of the
amount due as specified therein, accord
ing to the true intent and meaning of the
act.
Held, also, That the assignment and
transfer by Waters to petitioner vested
his right and title thereto in his assignee,
and he was entitled to be paid the amount
due thereon, as well as the interest due
on both certificates.
Judgment affirmed.
Lyon, de Graffenreid & Irwin; George
W. Warwick, for plaintiff.
O. B. Wooten for defendant.
William H. Morgan, guardian, &c., vs.
James P. West and Phillips West, prin
cipals, and A. H. West, security—Suit
on Administrator’s Bond. No. 15,
Southwestern Circuit.
WARNER, J.
This was an action instituted on an ad
ministrator’s bond against the principals
and their securities, in the name of the
Ordinary, for the use of the plaintiffs.
The defendants demurred to the declara
tion and the Court sustained the demur
rer on the ground that a suit on the bond
could not be maintained, thereon, until a
suit had first been brought against the
administrators, judgment obtained
against them and a return of nulla bona.
The plaintiffs made a motion to amend
their declaration, which was overruled by
the Court, to which the plaintiffs excep
ted.
Held, That under the 246Sth Section
of the Code, a suit may be brought on
the administrator’s bond without fir 31 ob
taining a judgment against the adminis
trators for a devastavit committed by
by them and a return of nulla bona.
Held, also, That the plaintiffs could
have amended their declaration so as to
require the defendants to account for the
estate of Walker which came into their
hands as his administrators, and for so
much of the estate of the Jackson chil
dren, which came into their hands as the
administrators of Walker’s estate, if any;
but only to that extent.
Held, also, That the defendants were
not liable on their bond for the waste by
Walker, as the guardian of the Jackson
children, in his lifetime, unless their
property was wasted by him, or some part
thereof came into the hands of the ad
ministrators as a part of Walker’s estate.
The administrators of Walker and their
security are liable on their bond, to ac
count to plaintiffs for the amount of their
estate which came into their hands as
part of Walker’s estate, if any, and no
more. The liability of defendants on
their bond as the administrators of Walk
er and the liability of Walker as the guar
dian of the Jackson children, are two dis
tinct causes of action which conld not be
joined in a suit on the administrators’
bond for an account as the estate of
Walker which came into their hands as
administrators on his estate. The ad
ministrators of Walker are liable for any
debt due by the intestate at the time of
his death to the extent of the assets of his
estate which came into their hands as his
administrators iu a suit on their bond for
the waste thereof by them as such admin
istrators.
Judgment reversed.
Hawkins & Burke, A. A. Smith for
plaintiffs.
C. T. Goode and Phil Cook for defen
dants.
land, as an intruder, ike defendant
a counter affidavit, and on the trial of
case in the Superior Court,
proved that Ambrose Barfield nurol
the land in 1859, and took a i
title thereto, and built a house on ii
When Ambrose Barfield went to
in 1863, he gave John Barfield’s wife ^
mission to occupy the house as
she pleased; but she dia not oceunt ?
and it remained unoccupied about a v ^
when Rushing Barfield’s wife wenti? 1
possession of it by permission of
John Barfield. The defendant R:
without a home, Mrs. Rushing BarfiJ
from sympathy, allowed her to°coineint
the house and occupy it with her unw
when Mrs. T ' > - - ■
occupy
some time in 1865, wl
Barfield moved out and left theTeS
ant remaining in it. eD ^'
The defendant introduced no eviiW
The jury found a verdict for the SB
iff, and the court below granted an
trial, to which the plaintiff excepted ^
Held, That the court below erred i
granting a new trial in this case, on IV
ground that there is no evidence in tl “
record, and that the defendant claim&i
any legal right to the possession of tb
land. e
Judgment reversed.
Hopkins & Guerry for plaintiff* x>
Guerry for defendant. ’ * D '
Seymour, Johnson & Co., vs.
M. Cobb; practice, No. 18, S w
Circuit. '■
WARNER, J.
Suit was. instituted by plaintiff against
the defendants on an account, alkginc
that defendants were partners, and in the
progress of the trial evidence was admitted '
for and against tlie existence of the part
nership, without objection, and on the
arguing of the case before the jury, the
point was made that no plea had been
filed denying the partnership; whereupon
the court allowed the defendants, at that
stage of the case, to file his plea, under
oath, denying the partnership. The l
counsel of plaintiff claimed continuance ^
of the case, on the ground of surprise
which was overruled by the court. The
plaintiffs then offered to introduce wit
nesses, then in court, to deny the truth
of defendant’s plea, and to prove the ex
istence of the partnership, as alleged in
the declaration, which the court refused
to allow them to do, whereupon the
plaintiffs excepted, and also excepted to
the admission in evidence of a written
agreement to submit certain matters in
controversy between the parties to arbi
tration.
; Held, That the plaintiffs had a legal
right to have requested the court to
charge the jury, that if the defend
ants were sued as partners, the partner
ship need not be proved unless denied
by the defendant on oath; when any
such plea, denying the paatnerskip on •
oath had been filed, held that when the
court allowed that plea to be filed by the
defendant, it materially altered and
changed the legal status' of the case be
fore the court and jury, so far as the
defendant’s liabiliiy as a partner was con
cerned, and if the plaintifis were not in
the discretion of the court, entitled to
a continuance, on the ground of surprise,
they certainly were entitled to intro
duce evidence then in court, to contro
vert the defendant’s pleas, which evi
dence was not necessary to be introduced
to entitle the plaintiffs to recover,
against the alleged partnership, until the
plea was allowed to be filed by the
court.
Held Further, ’That the written agree
ment to submit certain matter then in
controversy between the parties, without
more, was irrelevant and improperly ad
mitted as evidence to the jury.
Judgment reversed.
N. A. Smith for plaintiff; G. T. Goode
for defendant.
P. N. Oliver vs. Shipley,. Roam & Co.—
Practice, No. 10, S. W. Circuit.
WARNER, J.
The plaintiffs’ attorney asked leave of
the Court to take a judgment in an action
brought on an open account against the
defendant, saying there was no plea
filed. The Court replied that he could
take his judgment at his own risk; that
if there was a plea filed, judgment would
be set aside. Whereupon a judgment
was assigned by the presiding Judge, the
defendant being in Court, inside of the
bar, when the plaintiffs’ counsel was pre
paring to take the judgment, and part of
the time in consultation with him; and
the next day the defendant, by his coun
sel, made a motion to set the judgment
aside on the ground that he had filed a
plea of payment in the action, after the
Who Can Answer 1
CiiAWFOKDVTLnE, Ga., July 31,1871.
Eds. Sun: Will you, or some of your
numerous readers, explain the following
phenomena to me ? There is a gin fac- \
tory in this place, and upon a quiet day
or at night when all sounds of business
are at an end, a faint but distinct pop
ping or cracking can be heard continual
ly in all portions of the shop, or wherever i
a new gin is sitting. This sound does
not come from an old gin. Upon turn
ing the breast, or cillinder, of one of
these new gins which as been set aside
for several days or weeks, this cracking
becomes a loud popping sound. “The
qestion before the house” is “What is the
cause of this sound ?” My own opinion
is that it is caused by currents of elec
tricity; but if so, why not the same in
the old as well as the new gin ? Perhaps J
some of ye college boys can explain the t
difficulty satisfactorily.
Yours, &c., ■ Mekicum.
We have a satisfactory solution of the
above mystery which we purpose giving
in due time. We prefer, however, hear
ing first from some of our scientific gentle
men upon the subject. We have heard
no theory advanced upon the subject,,
The one we have is peculiarly our own, j
and we hold it to be a good one, still, if jl
it be that we are iu error, we will be ^
pleased to be set right.
Let us hear from some of our scholars
relative to this mystery.
*-•-« 1
A Fast Type-Setter.
A well-authenticated instance of ---
type-setting was recently related to us by
Mr. John F. Babcock, of tlie-New Bruns-•
wick (N. J.) Fredonian. Whilst speak
ing of the late international match,
Babcock stated that Mr. Robert Bonner,
of the New York Ledger, had perform^
the greatest feat in that lino he evei
heard of ; that in the old American
publican office, in New* York city, in tc ®.
year 1845 or 1846, he set 32,997 ems
solid Minion reprint, 25 ems wide, in **
consecutive hours, commencing
o’clock noon of one day, • and working
through until 12 o’clock noon of the tor
lowing day; that Mr. Bonner had
taken, for*a wager, to set 33,000 ems E
judgment had been signed, but did not , _ ... . _ H
shite when or how the payment had been khe time named, and came within
made. The Court refused the motion to ! ems of winning it, which so satisfied
set aside the judgment, and the defend- opponents in the wager that it was cbee* -
ant excepted. _ fully surrendered to him. Mr. Baoco>
Held, That, under the statement of himself was one cf the judges in this tru-
and tkerefpre speaks from his own P tV
ial knowledge. We think 1,375 ma
under the statement of
facts disclosed by the record, there was
no error in the conrt below in refusing
the motion to set aside the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Hawkins & Burke and N. A. Smith for
plaintiff; C. T. Goode for defendants.
Martha F. Turner vs. Penelope Barfield—
Intruders Act. No. 7, S. W. Circuit.
WARNER, J.
When a warrant was sued out by plaiu-
tifi to remove the defendant from her
an hour, for twenty-four hours in succ
sion, on solid matter, is pretty fast wor
what say the rushers?—Printers Wf 6
Ucr.
The Middle Georgian says, tbc % cott<£
crop has been injured twenty-five P*j
cent, within the last week, by ik'° u S .,
Corn is be>ng burnt up as rapidly as \
have ever known any crop to be i°J lir